F
fin
Guest
It’s like being in the Twilight Zone.
It just didn’t occur to me that I would be witnessing this.
It just didn’t occur to me that I would be witnessing this.
- Status
P
pnewton
Guest
No one is lost forever. That is not too difficult to understand.AL 297 “….No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves…”
The Holy Father is only applying moral theology that is used universally to the problem of these irregular marriages. For example, it is a basic principle that grave matter does not equate to mortal sin. Grave matter is necessary for mortal sin, but so is full knowledge and deliberate consent.
If one is confused by this document, it should present not barrier. There is no obligation on the part of anyone to seek any spiritual direction from a priest on this matter, as outlined in Amoris Laetitia. Just don’t do it.
P
pnewton
Guest
I see a few parallels today to the Novatian controversy of the third century. At that time, as today, there was a resistance to the Church taking what was considered extraordinary measures to extend the mercy of God to repentant sinners. I do not know where we are headed, but in light of history, there is not need for apprehension or fear for all who love their brothers and sisters and want to see “caritas in veritate” prevail.
G
Ginny89
Guest
The church has never permitted disciplines that directly contravene previously established doctrine. This issue cannot be reduced so simply, I m afraid.
T
twf
Guest
Has not the Diocese of Rome itself issued new guidelines that envision scenarios where those in illicit second unions may receive? Some dioceses are saying “no change”, others are implementing new guidelines. How can His Eminence say no clarification is required?
G
Ginny89
Guest
So no one goes to Hell? When Jesus taught us that some could be lost forever in the outer darkness and the gnashing of teeth, was he not talking about forever?
No one is lost forever except by their own free will. That is the teaching of the Bible and of the church for 2 millennia. Not even a pope has authority to say if no one is in hell or not unless as a private matter of private revelation but not as the deposit of faith.
It seems to me the issue here is whose mercy matters? If God has set the conditions of mercy at repentance and renunciation, does the church have authority to remove that condition? If the church then purports to do so, is that mercy or blasphemy?
Those who oppose these innovations oppose them on the basis that this ‘mercy’ claimed to be offered contrary to the explicitly taught will of God is offered by persons unwittingly engaged in a power-grab: it is not ‘their’ mercy that the sinner needs but God’s mercy. Not the pope’s or the Bishops’ or the priests’ mercy, but Christ’s mercy. And he has told the church how to avail this free God-given gift of mercy to all: forgive sins. When? When the people repent. When we purport to offer mercy any other way, we are not offering Gods mercy but our own. Yet it is not our mercy that the sinner needs but God’s.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
*“We are very far from a correction and I say it is a loss to the Church to discuss these things publicly. Amoris laetitia is very clear in its doctrine and we can interpret (in it) Jesus’ entire doctrine on marriage, the entire doctrine of the Church in 2000 years of history.”
What Pope Francis asks in the document, Cardinal Müller said, is “to discern the situation of these people who live in an irregular union; and to help these people to find a path for a new integration into the Church according to the conditions of the sacraments, of the Christian message of marriage.”*
I think His Eminence has said it very well indeed.
We have certainly had no problem in implementing Amoris laetitia, with guidelines in place for the priests who will actually provide pastoral accompaniment to those who are in special need.
We are, moreover, assuredly able to interpret and apply what we have been tasked with interpreting and applying; also possessing the resources available within the presbyterate to provide fraternal support and help to each other…and, as His Eminence says, with this properly occurring in the confidentiality that exists within and among the presbyterate under our bishop and not in public fora.
His words concerning the process of discernment could scarcely have been better chosen or better delineated.
His Eminence proves himself yet again, as we have known for so many years, that he is remarkably gifted and we are grateful to Pope Benedict for bringing him to Rome to serve the Holy See and, thereby, the Church in all the lands.
What Pope Francis asks in the document, Cardinal Müller said, is “to discern the situation of these people who live in an irregular union; and to help these people to find a path for a new integration into the Church according to the conditions of the sacraments, of the Christian message of marriage.”*
I think His Eminence has said it very well indeed.
We have certainly had no problem in implementing Amoris laetitia, with guidelines in place for the priests who will actually provide pastoral accompaniment to those who are in special need.
We are, moreover, assuredly able to interpret and apply what we have been tasked with interpreting and applying; also possessing the resources available within the presbyterate to provide fraternal support and help to each other…and, as His Eminence says, with this properly occurring in the confidentiality that exists within and among the presbyterate under our bishop and not in public fora.
His words concerning the process of discernment could scarcely have been better chosen or better delineated.
His Eminence proves himself yet again, as we have known for so many years, that he is remarkably gifted and we are grateful to Pope Benedict for bringing him to Rome to serve the Holy See and, thereby, the Church in all the lands.
P
pnewton
Guest
Of course not. But that statement just begs the question.
I have absolutely no idea where you got that. You must consider context. I wonder how much of this so-called confusion results from the repeated error of taking sentences out of context, just like you did. This is not a discussion of eternal destiny but of people still in the midst of living.
This is a false dichotomy, as in they are the same. The Pope, his bishops and priests, as the Church* are* the instrument of the mercy of Christ. So yes to all, or no to all.
*And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. *
I do not mind honest discussion about what I have said, but I think it important to avoid straw man arguments. Those most definitely will contribute to confusion.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
As a priest and as a theologian, I could not be happier or more grateful to the Lord to be part of the Catholic Church in 2017 – and to see such an amazing and phenomenal Successor to Peter in Pope Francis. I think he will be to the Church for the next six decades what Good Pope Saint John XXIII was to the Church of my younger days.If I don’t laugh at your post, I will cry. Welcome to the Catholic Church of 2017.
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
:sad_yes:
P
pnewton
Guest
And Ginny, you are right that the issue can not be reduced to something simplistic. Note that I said I saw a few parallels, and as in all comparisons, they are limited, prove nothing and only serve an illustrative purpose. But I do think we should heed the words of St. John Paul who taught us not to fear, and more recently Cardinal Burke who reminded Catholics to remain serene.
P
pnewton
Guest
As one who believes in the importance of language, I am bother by the phrase “the Church of 2017”. Don Ruggero reworded this phrase, “the Church in 2017.” It is an important distinction. The former implies discontinuity. The latter confirms the continuity of the Catholic Church. The danger is that seeing the Church as no longer the Church is an opening to schismatic thinking. We really should be more careful.
F
FollowChrist34
Guest
Cardinal Gerhard Muller, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), has said that there is no need for clarification of Amoris Laetitia
.
Just saw Edward Pentin’s piece (the plot thickens):
ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-muellers-tv-interview-causes-bewilderment
I would echo Müller’s “I don’t like this” in a slightly different context. This dispute is not going anywhere, whether it be behind closed doors or in the public square. You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube by shutting the doors, forbidding cameras and firing a few people. And calling it discerning in the moment or whatever it is. I am actually pretty good at discerning in the moment. A lot of people are. Hope there is a plan for dealing with that - after the CDF has been reformed/refreshed.
G
Ginny89
Guest
They are not strawmen arguments. The phrase I quoted spoke of condemnation forever. But the only way people are condomned forever is if they themselves dont change the thing that brings condemnation. The idea that there can be an expiry date to mortal sin apart from actual repetance is what I was referring to. Sorry if I misunderstood the context.
The other issue iabout the false dichotmoy? No! The mercy of prelates and God is not identical. The mercy of prelates is that of God only if they are acting on his behalf and according to his will not according to their own will. They are servants. Otherwise, they are doing their own thing. If a prelate decides to forgive you now for murder that you have announced you are planning to commit tomorrow, for example, whether they are pope or parish priest, that is their own thing. Not God’s mercy. Because Gods mercy will not save you until you repent in your heart.
The problem I had with this whole thing is that some essentially claim that they can do this for adultery. You don’t have to repent and promise to stop. Just go and receive communion. Well, in that case, can I sleep with my boyfriend who I love and go for communion? Why sare some sinners called to make sacrificies and others are treated as if the cross is too big for them? This is my whole confusion and struggle with this affair. I don’t see how a pope can chose to extend mercy to an unrepetant sinner unless he first claims to change the reality of the sin or the call to repentance. But the pope cam do nrither of those things! Even if we feel very sorry for other people’s suffering, are there not limits that arise from the fact that we are not God? That’s my struggle. I find it hard to believe in a church that contradicts itself so blatantly. If our doctrines are true, then there should be no debate about the obligations of persons who are in a second marriage without being sure that the first is invalid. It is the same obligation for us all. To live chastely. But suddenly there is confusion about what was always so clear. Why if our church is the true church?
D
Don_Ruggero
Guest
P
pnewton
Guest
This is an odd position for a Catholic. Do you believe in the primacy of Peter or apostolic succession? These “prelates” as you put it are the Pope, in this case, and the bishops. In other words, they *are *the Church. I quoted what Jesus said. I would think that would be sufficient. You are entitled to your opinion, but I have to say “No” to your opinion, though I will not add the exclamation point, but simply trust the promise Jesus gave us.
I never said the second two things. You have given a lot of rhetoric that is not being argued or proposed here. That is why I say it is a straw man. If I claimed that you, or “some people” were claiming that those in irregular situations were beyond mercy, wouldn’t you cry foul as well? That’s all I am saying. It is best to honestly represent another’s position and not inflate, extend or distort it.
As to my opinion on this, I note you are new here, so I guess you have not followed a lot of the previous conversations. They are all still available though.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
The problem is, there seems to not be a unified interpretation in regards to what you call the “process of discernment”, neither by the clergy nor laypeople.
With all due respect to Cardinal Muller, as long as there continues to be divergent opinions shared regarding interpretation of Amoris Latetia and the particular passages in relation to the divorced and remarried, this is going to be an ongoing issue that is going to crop up time and time again.
I’m curious to see how the four Cardinals who launched the dubia will respond to Cardinal Muller’s comments and the over 20 theologians etc. that have responded positively to the dubia.
P
pnewton
Guest
Yet. As most national conferences haven’t completed implementation, it is too early to claim there is not a unified interpretation on this process. In September, the USCCB issued a report that said the bishops wanted to go slow and careful, and most diocese have this under study in committed at this time. Sure some conferences have moved faster. Also, I think it a mistake to think there needs to be a unified implementation. Economic resources, the number of Catholics per priest, and the prevailing culture can all impact how extensive this implementation will need to be, how detailed, and how quickly it is needed.
I like that the US is being careful in this and that the bishops, even though they are competent in their own diocese, are collaborating.
T
TCEL
Guest
- Status